- (1.) The petitioners in this Article 226 petition dated September 29, 2011 are questioning an order of the Registrar in charge, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Kolkata Debts Recovery Tribunal dated June 24, 2011 (at p. 50). The impugned order dated June 24, 2011 is quoted below: "Received an application under section 17(1) of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) presented by Ld. Advocate, Smt. Mitul Chakrabarty, Kris Textile Pvt. Ltd. & Another against Oriental Bank of Commerce. The application has been filed seeking relief against the Possession Notice published in newspaper on 10.05.2011. The claim of the Bank is Rs.78,10,519.80. On scrutiny of the application it has been found that instant application has been filed on 24.06.2011, whereas limitation period of 45 days from the date of the impugned notice has been completed on 23.06.2011. Hence, the application is barred by period of limitation. As per the order passed by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court [2010 (3) CHN (Cal) 95] on 30.04.2010 Limitation Act cannot have any application to the original proceedings under section 17(1) of SARFAESI Act. Hence, the instant application can not be registered."
(2.) In the capacity of the secured creditor Oriental Bank of Commerce took steps for recovery of outstanding debt. The authorised officer of the bank issued a possession notice dated May 10, 2011, evidently, taking measures under section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners made an application under section 17 of the Act with the Debts Recovery Tribunal on June 24, 2011.
(3.) The Registrar passed the impugned order refusing to register the application on the grounds that it was time-barred, and that in view of a decision of this Court the delay could not be condoned. Now questioning the order the petitioners have filed this petition.;